TY - JOUR
T1 - Possible Solution to Publication Bias Through Bayesian Statistics, Including Proper Null Hypothesis Testing
AU - Konijn, Elly A.
AU - van de Schoot, Rens
AU - Winter, Sonja D.
AU - Ferguson, Christopher J.
PY - 2015/10/2
Y1 - 2015/10/2
N2 - The present paper argues that an important cause of publication bias resides in traditional frequentist statistics forcing binary decisions. An alternative approach through Bayesian statistics provides various degrees of support for any hypothesis allowing balanced decisions and proper null hypothesis testing, which may prevent publication bias. Testing a null hypothesis becomes increasingly relevant in mediated communication and virtual environments. To illustrate our arguments, we re-analyzed three data sets of previously published data --media violence effects, mediated communication, and visuospatial abilities across genders. Results are discussed in view of possible Bayesian interpretations, which are more open to a content-related argumentation of varying levels of support. Finally, we discuss potential pitfalls of a Bayesian approach such as BF-hacking (cf., “God would love a Bayes Factor of 3.01 nearly as much as a BF of 2.99”). Especially when BF values are small, replication studies and Bayesian updating are still necessary to draw conclusions.
AB - The present paper argues that an important cause of publication bias resides in traditional frequentist statistics forcing binary decisions. An alternative approach through Bayesian statistics provides various degrees of support for any hypothesis allowing balanced decisions and proper null hypothesis testing, which may prevent publication bias. Testing a null hypothesis becomes increasingly relevant in mediated communication and virtual environments. To illustrate our arguments, we re-analyzed three data sets of previously published data --media violence effects, mediated communication, and visuospatial abilities across genders. Results are discussed in view of possible Bayesian interpretations, which are more open to a content-related argumentation of varying levels of support. Finally, we discuss potential pitfalls of a Bayesian approach such as BF-hacking (cf., “God would love a Bayes Factor of 3.01 nearly as much as a BF of 2.99”). Especially when BF values are small, replication studies and Bayesian updating are still necessary to draw conclusions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84948689435&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/19312458.2015.1096332
DO - 10.1080/19312458.2015.1096332
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84948689435
SN - 1931-2458
VL - 9
SP - 280
EP - 302
JO - Communication Methods and Measures
JF - Communication Methods and Measures
IS - 4
ER -